5 ms·

Off topic, but I recommend getting a subscription of The Economist. Totally worth the money, and the weekly format combined with an almost complete lack of bias

Off topic, but I recommend getting a subscription of The Economist. Totally worth the money, and the weekly format combined with an almost complete lack of bias gives a nice leisurely pace to catch up with world's events.

alasdair_ 7y ago
Agreed. The Economist has a bias towards free markets and free press but they are clear on those points. They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story. Even Karl Marx read The Economist, for what it’s worth.
- avarun 7y ago
  > They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story. I don't actually understand this. I personally find that following specific authors whose journalism I find of high quality is a lot more efficient use of my time than following publications. Why does The Economist make this needlessly difficult, and what's the benefit of doing so?
  - YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
    Matter of taste I suppose. It's more like Wikipedia than other modern journalism. Some journalists use pseudonyms, for example Banyan, Butterwood: https://www.italki.com/question/377016 https://www.italki.com/question/377016 Edit: I'd say it has the effect of reducing the impact of ego on writing.
  - human20190310 7y ago
    The benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author.
    - alasdair_ 7y ago
      >The benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author. Exactly. Who emphasis should be on "is this true/ a good point?" over "is this someone I think I should agree with already?"
rorykoehler 7y ago
The Economist has hardcore bias. Very neoliberal.
- YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
  Not according to those guys: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/ For example, they endorsed both Democratic and Republican candidates for president in the past.
  - rorykoehler 7y ago
    I'm just going by what I have read. My ex cofounder was subscribed so I read it quite a bit. Found it to be very biased neoliberal but then again I'm interested in ideas that fall way outside the Overton window of the democrat and republican political sphere. Democrat and Republican are essentially siblings. They're not that different in that they both aim to use capitalism and the power of the nation state military to exert influence and assert dominance.

alasdair_ 7y ago

Agreed. The Economist has a bias towards free markets and free press but they are clear on those points. They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story. Even Karl Marx read The Economist, for what it’s worth.

avarun 7y ago
> They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story. I don't actually understand this. I personally find that following specific authors whose journalism I find of high quality is a lot more efficient use of my time than following publications. Why does The Economist make this needlessly difficult, and what's the benefit of doing so?
- YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
  Matter of taste I suppose. It's more like Wikipedia than other modern journalism. Some journalists use pseudonyms, for example Banyan, Butterwood: https://www.italki.com/question/377016 https://www.italki.com/question/377016 Edit: I'd say it has the effect of reducing the impact of ego on writing.
- human20190310 7y ago
  The benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author.
  - alasdair_ 7y ago
    >The benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author. Exactly. Who emphasis should be on "is this true/ a good point?" over "is this someone I think I should agree with already?"

rorykoehler 7y ago

The Economist has hardcore bias. Very neoliberal.

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
Not according to those guys: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/ For example, they endorsed both Democratic and Republican candidates for president in the past.
- rorykoehler 7y ago
  I'm just going by what I have read. My ex cofounder was subscribed so I read it quite a bit. Found it to be very biased neoliberal but then again I'm interested in ideas that fall way outside the Overton window of the democrat and republican political sphere. Democrat and Republican are essentially siblings. They're not that different in that they both aim to use capitalism and the power of the nation state military to exert influence and assert dominance.